How does one define sound 'mental health'? — Posty McPostface

I did some writing on 'mood' last year. There are reams of writing on 'mood disorder', but strikingly there is next to nothing on what an ordered or normal mood is, either in psychology or philosophy. We know disorder when we see it, seems to be the thinking, even if we can't define what it deviates from.

I've been reading some different corners of Aristotle and thinking about 'eunoia'. It gets (mis)translated as 'goodwill' (which is Cicero's fault for the intervening Latin). For Aristotle eunoia is the feeling one experiences and expresses towards one's deepest friends - the baseline of his Nicomachean Ethics - and in rhetoric it's the emotional connection you make to those you are trying to persuade of something.

I like the idea of it as a kind of baseline for mental sense-making and strength. We could form a society: the Eunoiacs. (could also be a name for a band :))

I did some writing on 'mood' last year. There are reams of writing on 'mood disorder', but strikingly there is next to nothing on what an ordered or normal mood is, either in psychology or philosophy. We know disorder when we see it, seems to be the thinking, even if we can't define what it deviates from. — mcdoodle

Great to see you mcdoodle.

This seems to be a case where things cannot be described but shown in practice, like good behavior or acceptable behavior. (again ethics and mental health?)

I've been reading some different corners of Aristotle and thinking about 'eunoia'. It gets (mis)translated as 'goodwill' (which is Cicero's fault for the intervening Latin). For Aristotle eunoia is the feeling one experiences and expresses towards one's deepest friends - the baseline of his Nicomachean Ethics - and in rhetoric it's the emotional connection you make to those you are trying to persuade of something. — mcdoodle

Yes, I think Aristotle was a pioneer in forming a framework under which acceptable behavior would be defined as practicing ethics, in this case, virtue ethics, which then the Stoics expanded on and which even modern day therapies owe in large debt to their teachings. And, quite frankly I don't know of any other system that is as elegant and sufficient to address the issue of what constitutes healthy wellbeing. Kant's deontological ethics is too rationalistic for it to be applicable to most people. Perhaps, Rawl's veil of ignorance could be applied; but, bias is ever-present. Consequentialist philosophies seem to demand some central authority with the calculus of utility already spelled out, and having this central authority dictate the workings of society as a benevolent dictator.

I like the idea of it as a kind of baseline for mental sense-making and strength. We could form a society: the Eunoiacs. (could also be a name for a band :)) — mcdoodle

Hah, as long as it's not related to hedonism!

I thought it was an edifying thought that what is ethical can be thought to be conducive to a sound and healthy mind?

Ah, reminds me of Plato. So the immoral person is mentally ill?

Ah, reminds me of Plato. — Mitchell

Plato. Heavy name to throw out, and I often try not referencing him due to my limited readings of his Dialogues and The Republic.

So the immoral person is mentally ill? — Mitchell

I would argue that this goes to what Thrasymachus said about justice and the lack of response from Socrates.

Another issue is that Plato spoke of the good life as something that originates from within, which Socrates talked about a 'daemon' that informed him about what is right and just. It can be argued that this 'daemon' or 'conscious' or whatever other cultural names have been devised for that inner voice that informs us about what is right or just to do is paramount to living a good and examined life. Platonists took this idea to mean that people must have a spirit, and listening to it is what constitutes being a good person. I might be wrong, but, I think Plato put a strong emphasis on conditioning the weak and frail body to realize the potential of this inner voice or soul. However, this form of education would be a far cry from what we have nowadays. The closest comparison would be some officer training program in the military nowadays. After all, Plato can be called an anti-materialist, I think?

Anyway, don't want to ramble any more than I have already.

Everyone justifies their behavior within their own moral compass, which derives from their larger worldview. When we encounter actions by another person that seems to us to violate an ethical principle we hold, our disapproval is invariably the fault of a clash in ethical worldviews between us and them.
In other words, you are not likely to find bad behavior is generally the result of bad intentions. The worst atrocities of history as well as the mundane daily affronts to our sensibilities, are caused by people who mean well but understand the world differently than we do.

When we level accusations of immorality against someone, we are expressing our own puzzlement and failure to make sense of the other's thinking from within their own perspective. It's a form of hostility on our part, an attempt to rectify our failure by forcing the other to comply with the way we expected them to act.

What about the golden rule? It seems that most cultures with a long enough history of thought have some version of it in their moral or ethical works? It really wouldn't be too difficult to practice the golden rule and maintain a stable mental health with respect to other people.

'Do unto other as you would have them do unto you'. And if the other behaves toward you in a way counter
to your ethical standards do you attribute this to his evil intentions or do you explain this on the basis of a different worldview on his part? The golden rule is worthless without insight into the other's way of construing the world. Without this insight, one is forced to impune the other's motives and this simply justifies endless wars of righteousness.

And if the other behaves toward you in a way counter
to your ethical standards do you attribute this to his evil intentions or do you explain this on the basis of a different worldview on his part? — Joshs

Different worldviews don't matter as long as we are both being ethical towards each other. In this case applying the golden rule.

The golden rule is worthless without insight into the other's way of construing the world. — Joshs

So differing worldviews are incommensurable? Applying the golden rule would seem to suffice for any person, as long as they aren't aliens of some sort, perhaps?

Without this insight, one is forced to impune the other's motives and this simply justifies endless wars of righteousness. — Joshs

Wars of righteousness aren't ethical or at least the ones I know of weren't based on ethics of any sort, perhaps an ethics of might makes right?

"So differing worldviews are incommensurable? Applying the golden rule would seem to suffice for any person, as long as they aren't aliens of some sort, perhaps?"

That's the whole point. We ARE alien to each other to some extent. That's why we call people from other cultures foreigners or aliens. Each time we get into intractable disagreements with others it's because we fail to see eye to eye on interpretations of actions.
Differing worldviews dont have to be incommensurable. But in order to bridge the gap between them, someone from one or the other side must be able to translate and subsume the other's perspective within their own. This doesnt have to require that either side take on the behavior of the other, but it will alleviate the urge to condemn and punish.



"Wars of righteousness aren't ethical or at least the ones I know of weren't based on ethics of any sort, perhaps an ethics of might makes right?"

What about the current verbal war of moral righteousness between U.S. progressives and Trump conservatives? The left attacks the right as selfish, greedy, bigoted and dishonest, The right accuses the left of similar immoral intents.

Neither side is able to fathom the gulf in worldview that separates them and so justifies their own actions as ethically based but condemns the other using ineffective standards like the Golden Rule.

— Posty McPostface

“What does it mean to be a well adjusted Nazi? Is that mental health? Or is a maladjusted person in a Nazi society the only one who is sane?” -- Ken Wilber

Nice quote. I don't think I can comment on that without making a faux pas.

Although someone named "Wisdom" quoting Ken Wilber makes me wonder.

Although someone named "Wisdom" quoting Ken Wilber makes me wonder. — Mitchell

May I ask of your thoughts on this thread, Mitchell?

Would greatly appreciate your input on thoughts about what Plato or Aristotle had to say or other philosophers.

Plato had a theory of what might be called "psychic harmony", where all the elements of the psyche worked in harmony and did not interfere with each other. And this he called "Justice", but we could call "mental health". For both Plato and Aristotle, irrational behavior was a sign that something was wrong in the individual, the self. Although neither had a explicit concept of mental health, it seems clear that what they were talking about is what we call mental health. It has the odd consequence in their philosophies that a person who acts immorally does so because of a mental health problem.

I currently take a small 'maintenance' dose of generic Effexor. I feel normal and function well. I've taken it for quite a few years. When I try to wean myself off it, I feel ill after a couple of days--not mentally ill, just physically ill, with odd, vague, but definitely unpleasant symptoms. I've made it for four days, then resumed.

I was able to wean myself off benzodiazepines and tri-cyclic antidepressants without much difficulty, but that was...30 years ago, and I had not been on them very long. And how many pounds of antidepressant since then?

I'm not against taking medications. I've taken drugs for glaucoma for some 30 years too. They have worked well--keeping pressure under control, preserving vision, preventing pain. But, as luck would have it, they stopped working in one eye. (Odd how a drug can work in one eye and stop working in the other one.)

I am grateful that these drugs have been found to control various acute and chronic conditions. Without the pharmacopeia we have, life would be nastier and shorter. Most people don't mind that they receive background doses of fluoride, but there are some who are militantly opposed. Likewise for the lunatic anti-vaxers.

Even if some drugs have toxicities, even if they fail sometimes, many lives have been better with them than without them. I think most of the people who have severe epilepsy, for example, find that drugs are better than frequent seizures, even though the difference between the therapeutic and toxic dose of some of the drugs is very small.

Predictably, some people are opposed to the anti-Herpes Zoster vaccine (prevents or reduces the severity of shingles). Don't know why; it's against nature, god, or something. Anyone who has had or knows someone who has had a bad case of shingles will opt for this godless unnatural vaccination without thinking a second about it.

It would seem that Plato and other philosophers* took the idea to heart and went to elaborate lengths to describe an ideal state that would let people flourish and live without an 'ill mind or spirit'. Maybe other philosophers didn't take the idea at face value; but, it seems intuitively clear that what is good is ethical, and what is right is good, and a good mind is a healthy one?

I suppose Aristotle couldn't improve on Plato's Republic, so he settled with describing how people ought to behave.

*Other philosophers include but are not limited to Hobbs, Mill, Roussou, Hegel, Marx, Rawls, Nozick, etc.

Now, do you think this attempt to envision an 'ideal' state has been futile in the past and present?

I have a ton of questions but I'll leave it at that.

Perhaps, mental health simply be understood as practicing good moral behavior and conduct or just living ethically? — Posty McPostface

No.

"There is of course no disputing that in modern Western society whites often oppress blacks and men often oppress women. This is bound to be the case in a social context in which people are forced to compete for scarce resources and to differentiate themselves from each other in any way which will accord them greater power, however illusory that power may be (nothing, after all, could be more pathetic than the belief that 'whiteness' confers personal superiority or that men are in some way to be valued more highly than women).

However, it is a conceptual mistake of the first magnitude to attribute the causes of such oppression to internal characteristics or traits of those involved. So long as sexism and racism are seen as personal attitudes which the individual sinner must, so to speak, identify in and root out of his or her soul, we are distracted from locating the causes of interpersonal strife in the material operation of power at more distal levels2. Furthermore, solidarity against oppressive distal power is effectively prevented from developing within the oppressed groups, who, successfully divided, are left by their rulers to squabble amongst themselves, exactly as Fanon detailed in the case of Algerians impoverished and embittered by their French colonial masters.

It is not that racist or sexist attitudes do not exist - they may indeed be features of the commentary of those who exercise or seek to exercise oppressive, possibly brutal proximal power. But that commentary is not the cause of the process that results in such proximal oppression and it is as futile to tackle the problem at that level as it is to try to cure 'neurosis' by tinkering with so-called 'cognitions' or 'unconscious motivation'.

This, I think, explains the otherwise puzzling success of 'political correctness' at a time when corporate power extended its influence over global society on an unprecedented scale. For this success was in fact no triumph of liberal thought or ethics, but rather the 'interiorizing', the turning outside-in of forms of domination which are real enough. The best-intentioned among us become absorbed in a kind of interior witch-hunt in which we try to track down non-existent demons within our 'inner worlds', while in the world outside the exploitation of the poor by the rich (correlating, of course, very much with black and white respectively) and the morale-sapping strife between men and women rage unabated.

Once again, we are stuck with the immaterial processes of 'psychology', unable to think beyond those aspects of commentary we take to indicate, for example, 'attitudes' or 'intentions'. The history of the twentieth century should have taught us that anyone will be racist in the appropriate set of circumstances. What is important for our understanding is an analysis of those circumstances, not an orgy of righteous accusation and agonised soul-searching." -- David Smail, Power, Responsibility and Freedom

I do not believe that anybody can truly understand "mental illness" without considering the work of David Smail.

For those who do not feel like ever reading Smail's work, I can give you this summary: psychological distress--the thing that brings people to the mental health clinic--is the result of distant social forces and an individual's place in networks of power, interest, etc., not something inside the individual. Clinical psychology is uniquely positioned to help individuals see the distant external sources of their psychological distress. Clinical psychology has, however, historically said nothing in therapy about society, power, interest, etc. and has instead focused on internal features of the individual such as memories, self-talk, etc.

It is probably not the best, most accurate summary, but hopefully anybody reading this gets the idea. Psychological distress--and the suffering that accompanies it--can only be addressed at the level of social systems. A lot of what we call mental illness and attribute to the isolated psyches of individuals is really symptoms of life in oppressive social networks of power, interest, etc. Changing the individual will not address the causes/sources of the problem.

Smail may be right or he may be wrong. But I do not believe that anybody can truly understand mental illness without considering his work.

That's a pretty common theme not exclusive to some philosophers who criticise social structures for creating psychological distress. Im sure many socialist and Marxist psychologists and social theorists should come to mind.

Hence my last post. Has this focus on creating an ideal society been futile and instead we should just focus on the individual and their beliefs about and in relation to society?

That's a pretty common theme not exclusive to some philosophers who criticise social structures for creating psychological distress. Im sure many socialist and Marxist psychologists and social theorists should come to mind.

Hence my last post. Has this focus on creating an ideal society been futile and instead we should just focus on the individual and their beliefs about and in relation to society? — Posty McPostface

Does the following sound like some Marxist calling for the realization of a utopia? To me it sounds like a health care professional trying to help people see the real sources of their suffering. I do not think that it is much different from a public health professional saying, "Historically the medical community has focused on the lifestyle choices of individuals. But this distracts us from the real causes of our illnesses that individuals have no control over: radiation, air pollution, etc." Read the following and tell us if you still think that it is somebody calling for the ideal society--for utopia--rather than somebody addressing social reality and social reality's effect on individual and collective suffering:

"The standpoint from which I write is a 'clinical' one, and the (tentative and provisional) conclusions I come to are the result of having struggled for years to make sense of the kinds of distress people bring to the psychological clinic, and how they cope with it. In the course of that struggle I have found myself constantly wandering into territory that is only partially familiar to me and being forced to use tools not routinely found in the clinical psychologist's kit. Though this is not a work of sociology, politics or philosophy, it will at times seem as if it is trying to be; but I want to insist, still, that it is a work of clinical psychology, and that is because it is throughout rooted in and informed by 'clinical' experience.

Even then, however, I have heavily to qualify the use of the word 'clinical' because it carries with it so many false assumptions. The majority of those who find themselves in distress in Western society turn to the clinic because there is nowhere else to go that carries the same promise of relief. They, as well as most of those who treat them, believe that they are hosts of a personal illness or disorder that can be cured by established medical and/or therapeutic techniques. That belief, however, is in my view (and the view of many others) false, and it is clinical experience itself that reveals it as false.

By 'clinical psychology', then, I do not mean a set of medically or therapeutically based procedures for the cure of emotional distress, but rather a privileged opportunity to investigate with people the origins of their difficulties and to consider the possibilities for change." -- David Smail, Power, Responsibility and Freedom

One of the questions that motivated Plato in his Republic is the question "How can one be mentally healthy in (mentally) sick society?" (Or so it seems to me.)

"How can one be mentally healthy in (mentally) sick society?" — Mitchell

Amen! Only with lots of therapy and/or medication. Or with a very solid upbringing that recognizes the sick state of society, and offers proper tools for coping and living within it.

Has this focus on creating an ideal society been futile and instead we should just focus on the individual and their beliefs about and in relation to society? — Posty McPostface

I believe that's what Marx was trying to do.

One of the questions that motivated Plato in his Republic is the question "How can one be mentally healthy in (mentally) sick society?" (Or so it seems to me.) — Mitchell

I would say that Plato was first and foremost against incompetence, which Aristotle expanded on or left off where Plato stopped, and philosophers have continued that tradition captured in Whitehead's footnote comment about Plato and Western philosophy.

At the heart of the issue seems to be the matter of educating the public, as Plato might say.

I believe that's what Marx was trying to do. — bioazer

Please do go on.

Marx believed that capitalism oppressed the individual-- suppressed the individual's voice-- , and that many individual beliefs and behaviors were responses to that oppression. In so many words, he claims multiple times in his and Engels' Manifesto that capitalism causes real psychological distress.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people — Karl Marx